No one is arguing that.
Absolutely no one
2 Likes
No, that isnât what people are arguing. Strawmanning. They are saying in this instance the Villa defenderâs touch was deliberate within the rules of interpretation of the law. You are saying it wasnât according to how you interpret it. Thatâs fine.
Whatâs strange is John Brooks interpreted it against LFC an official involved in a controversial incident a week or so earlier. Surprise surprise.
Not all refs are interpreting it the same way.
1 Like
Football is a game of subjective decisions for the ref. Thatâs fine. Mistakes will be made. Two situations that seem similar will have wildly different decisions based on subjectivity.
Thatâs never been the problem. The problem has been the bias inherent in those accumulated subjective decisions. Now, before anyone points out decisions in our favour, well of course we will get the rub of the green at times.
Over a long period (say Kloppâs whole tenure here), in an ideal non-biased subjective refereeing calls scenario, it would even itself out. But the stats and analysis all point towards an imbalance in the subjective calls.
Again, Iâm not calling a calciopoli style scandal. Itâs the unconscious bias in the way we get refereed under Klopp (who plays the game in arguably the most honest way of all the teams in the big leagues â again, that doesnât discount sometimes we will do the Milner take one for the team challenge).
It just takes a small nudge in one direction to have significant influence over the course of a season. Without even resorting to statistics, just do the eye test between how Prem refs deal with Kane and Salah.
1 Like
John Brooks the 4th official from last week⌠4th official as in not the referee, but TOLD the actual referee to give Jurgen a Yellow card minimum. Then telling Tierney to go to the monitor and decide if it should be a redâŚ!
To me, proof right there that the guy is an egotistical power mad - hair trigger twat when it comes to Jurgen and LFC
1 Like
Youâre still stuck on the ball deflected off the defender when it didnât.He clearly and deliberately kicks the ball out to ensure it doesnât go back across the goal to Konate/Gakpo.
1 Like
There have been absolutely loads of comments claiming any deliberate attempt to touch the ball plays Virgil on. That is not a case of arguing what Konsa was trying to do with this intervention, it is ignoring that consideration completely. Your own words have even argued this despite what you now claim your supposed position is. This outcome Iâm describing is entirely consistent with that line of thinking.
Why?
At 3 pm on Saturday Liverpool, in a decent vein of form are in with a shout of CL next season.
At 5 pm they are all but gone.
The club have made an official request for explanation if two massive decusiins in the match.
You want the conversation to stop here, because you are running out of road?
You are clutching at straws now.
1 Like
4th official from last week? Do you mean the Spurs game almost a month ago? He asked Tierney to check the replay of Kloppâs actions towards him when Jota scored to check if it was a red?
If you want to argue that then fine. I dont agree, but it is at least referencing the real considerations refâs are instructed to use. That is NOT what was being stated by most prior to this though.
FWIW though, this is how he cleared it
The ball is behind him, at an awkward height and coming at him from just a couple of yards away. I dont believe that anyone would serious argue in any other situation that this is a player in control of where he wants to ball to go, rather than an instinctive attempt to block a cross.
2 Likes
It is what they are saying,theyâre just not spelling it out for you
They may not always work out but that doesnât mean they werenât in control of what they were doing.
Donât conflate what you may have argued with what others have. It is patently clear, both in the arguments used and in rejections of the explanations for the decision provided that your apparent opinion was not the one being aired by several others.
Arguments stated, often repeatedly
- If heâs on the pitch then its deliberate
- He made a move towards the ball therefore its deliberate
- It didnt deflect off him therefore itâs deliberate
Honestly, I would love it if we have collectively moved passed that and given up on those arguments.
Sounds to me that what they were saying,âthe defender went for it and hit itâ,was that he deliberately went for it in order to stop it going back to a LFC player and put it out.They could have expanded on it but i thought that it was obvious what at least some were suggesting.
Maybe you could suggest we close the thread if youâd like to move on
1 Like
@Limiescouse
We are going to differ on this, so respectfullyâŚand I mean respectfullyâŚ
I believe Konsta makes a deliberate play for the ball and within the criterion provided (twice) by Rambler, he plays Virgil onside. The goal should stand.
I have not changed my stance, even if you believe I have. My consistent view is that the goal should stand. You offered hypothetical situation which bears no resemblance to the scenario on Saturday. It makes zero sense to talk about Fabinho shooting from yards out, and compare it to what actually happened. And to suggest that is what I am saying. Its not. Every scenario is different.
(See @RedSeven response above)
You truly believe you are correct, and thats fine.
But please consider this.
LFC, who rarely venture into this type of arena have requested explanations for the two controversial incidents on Saturday.
We both know the official line from PL/PMGOL etcâŚbut you must admit that the seriousness of the clubs stance might just question your interpretation of the rule?
4 Likes
You are obviously a smart guy, eloquent and logical. But the problem with smart people sometimes, is they think theyâre the only smart people around. Your argument is now bordering on being pedantic.
You see it one way, thatâs great. Others see it another way. Donât confuse their point of view as not getting it or understanding your explanation.
3 Likes
The problem is that that is not the test, in particular the bolded part, and in this instance I donât think it was either of those things. That looked to me like an attempt to flick the ball.
1 Like
Iâll be honest, on the first viewing of the Gakpo goal I thought VvD was offside from the moment the ball was played into the box by Trent. But on a second look, heâs onside for that passage of play. Ball is intentionally played clumsily off Diazâ header back to Van Dijk, no way he should be considered offside.
This is the line in the laws that supports what @Limiescouse is saying.
âi.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
You look at the point of contact with the ball.
Is that a coordinated move or is it more of an instinctive flick of the boot? Youâd be hard pressed to argue that is a natural way to play the ball and not instinct kicking in.
Did it achieve a degree of control that could be deemed as âlimitedâ? I donât think you could describe it as anything other than limited unless you think he deliberately intended to knee the ball directly to an opponent.
By the letter of the law, it is the right decision. The law however is an arse and the nature of it will always throw up these weird anomalies. We ended up on the shit end of it this time. Itâs annoying but itâs not some giant conspiracy or vengeance from the ref. Itâs a shit law being applied correctly and if this had happened against us and was allowed to stand those same people arguing that this should have stood would be arguing that the refs were against us for giving it as a goal.
The fact weâre discussing the minutia of the wording of the law shows you itâs not a simple black and white binary decision and that the law itself is too complex.
2 Likes
I was going to drop out and leave you with the W until this. You just have to bite back regardless of what is being said. You are like that little fucking mosquito that is intent on flying 5cm above your ear all night when the lights go out.
So, Iâve created this video of the incident from the best possible angle. The angle that was not actually shown at all live. Its in GIF so watch it until your eyes bleed. I donât care.
I look at that and I donât see even close to enough evidence for the footage to marry up with the IFABâs criteria for deciding if it was âdeliberately playedâ.
https://www.theifab.com/news/law-11-offside-deliberate-play-guidelines-clarified/
- The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it (the ball was behind him)
- The ball was not moving quickly
- The direction of the ball was not unexpected
- The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control (the ball was behind him)
- A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air
What I hate about the IFABâs guidelines is this:
âThe following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, âdeliberately playedâ the ball:â
The rules are too open to interpretation with a sentence like that. Tighten up the fucking criteria so we donât have these days long, endless discussions!
But regardless, its very, very difficult to make an argument, watching that video, that he was âin controlâ of the ball.
1 Like